mspaintadventuresfandomcom-20200224-history
Forum:Signature policy
Okay, so without wishing to be a spoilsport, there's something that I think needs to be said. The purpose of a user's signature is to identify that they made the post. Therefore, we should discourage signatures that don't make it clear who is posting. I've some other concerns as well, mainly relating to formatting, which I'll address in a moment. Now, I hate pointing the finger and making an example of one person, but I'm afraid one does spring to mind. Chezrush has used all of the following in the last four months: *Chezrush *MatrixGod *MaximusAwesomus *Maximu5awes0meu5 *Boot to da head yo *I am the wizard its me * Homestuck Hotshot This is quite frankly absurd, and not at all conducive to identifying the poster. Therefore, I propose a simple guideline for the text content of a sig: it must be either the username, or at the very least, something extremely similar to the username, or the user's Chumhandle; if they have more than one, it should be their main one. As a rule, the actual username would be the preferred option unless, like mine, the chumhandle is very similar. Also crucial is that whatever the name presented by the sig is, it must include a link to the userpage. Now, I'm all for a little personal flair, provided it doesn't impair the intended function of a signature. So as long as the above guidelines are followed, there aren't many other restrictions. However, there are certain formatting possibilities where I think we should perhaps draw the line. The most notable one is that sigs may contain images, but not too many, and furthermore, because text line height is 15px, no signature should be taller than 15px. This includes the heights of images or divs. So with these guidelines in mind, I will now (with apologies once again) deconstruct Chezrush's signatures. And to contrast, here are some customised signatures that demonstrate individuality without impairing identifiability or overdoing it on visual formatting: :Ryūlóng (竜龍) ::Simple, but with a bit of colour. The non-latin text is acceptable because it's for the talk page link, i.e. the username isn't being obscured. :experimentalDeity ::Established chumhandle, which is acceptable. Not ideal, to be blunt, but certainly acceptable. :Octachor n ::The animation pushes it a little, but it's a small image and isn't too intrusive. :Jimclo ''' ::Plain text, username (and also chumhandle), but with some tidy colours and formats. Nothing flashy. :skaiarorNetbody' ::I would have to concede that my own sig is perhaps approaching the limit on fancy formats, although the text glow effect doesn't alter the line height, and isn't intrusive. The text is my chumhandle, which is also extremely similar to my username, so that's fine. Naturally, all of this is only a proposal. It may not be a big deal at the moment, but it could become one, and it's the kind of thing that may be better to nip in the bud. It's not about being restrictive, just about keeping priorities straight and bearing in mind what the actual purpose of signatures is. Obviously, suggestions and discussion are very welcome I seriously wish I had not taught him how to fiddle with his sig now. experimentalDeity 20:49, April 14, 2012 (UTC) :It's not that big a deal. It's not like you loaned him nuclear warhead passcodes or anything, right? (Note to self: change nuclear warhead passcodes.) 11:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC) Also, how is it not ideal? experimentalDeity 20:54, April 14, 2012 (UTC) ::I guess back to Chezrush it is. Chezrush 23:58, April 14, 2012 (UTC) :I've been thinking about this too. I think there should be a maximum of 1 picture in the signature...no pictures is preferable though. If pictures are used, they should be small, i.e. the file itself should be resized, instead of coding the signature to resize the file. I agree that it's vital to include a link to the user page. Size restrictions also seems sensible. I, however, don't agree that people need to use their user name or chumhandle. I think they can name themselves whatever they want (nothing insulting or racist or anything ofcourse), as long as they will stick to it. I would have no problem with people changing their signature name, as long as they are certain that they will keep this name for a good while (let's say...at least a year?). But yeah, changing it too often just confuses everyone, so that should be discouraged. Also, staff should be encouraged to keep their user name as a signature, since other editors need to be able to identify them easiely.bitterLime 07:30, April 15, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, for one thing, if you wanted a different username to be called by, why didn't you just select it to begin with? Wikia can let you change your username once if you ask them. For another, a user might use a sig name that's been selected as a username by another user, and even if that user doesn't edit here, that could be confusing if someone knows that user. On the cynical side, a user could use the username of another user with the intention to create a (transparent) impersonation of them, and that's pretty much guaranteed to fool ''someone. Even if you make rules against that sort of impersonation specifically, it's kind of tough to know if another user exists by the name you're using in your signature unless you've seen them before. 11:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC) Nah I like my username. Its cool and no one knows how to pronounce it. Chezrush 12:35, April 15, 2012 (UTC) :Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically, just a general what if "you" person. 13:05, April 15, 2012 (UTC) Just going to point out something here but part of the problem with complicated sigs is all the code they add on to pages and then if they change their sig it causes them to have multiple different signatures across the wiki. This was part of the issue with Chezrush's sig (sorry Chez), however Sorceror Nobody and Jimcloud have their signatures as part of a template and added that to their custom sig, this allows long complicated code in the sig while limiting the code added onto talk pages and allows updating of the signature wiki wide simply by modifying the template thus keeping their sigs consistent. My point is perhaps mandating that complex sigs be subpaged/templated and add the transclusion to the custom sig instead. The Light6 13:18, April 15, 2012 (UTC) :That was another point I meant to add once discussion had picked up, but you've saved me having to do so :P Yeah, the main advantages to a template are always the code compactness and the automatic wiki-wide changing of all transclusions of the sig. I could change from skaiarorNetbody to Sorceror Nobody and there wouldn't be a single instance of left lying around on the wiki. Except the one used for demonstration above, which I deliberately subst'd because it was for demonstration. :I should point out that there are two ways to transclude a template sig. One is just to type it out, which I do. I literally just type to use it. The other is to include it in your custom sig under your wikia preferences. You cannot just place the template transclusion in that; it'll just substitute the code still. You have to create a second template page, transclude the template call into that, then transclude that page into your custom sig. That way, it subst's the transclusion call, not the code itself. Of course, the latter also means that you have to do the same thing on all wikis you use, otherwise you'll end up with it calling a blank page if you try to sign on different wikis, the custom sig field being universal an' all. Which, along with the fact my sig uses parameters, is why I prefer to type mine out ; ) :@experimentalDeity: When I say "not ideal", I'm referring to the fact that while we can encourage creativity up to a point, we should still favour usernames. In particular, the thing is that it's not remotely similar to your username. Most chumhandles aren't; Jimcloud and I are slightly anomalous like that. So all I'm saying is that technically, the ideal scenario would be that everyone use their usernames or something similar, but that chumhandles are permitted because they are also unique to the user. Or, should be, anyway. Another reason I prefer usernames or similar is simply that I prefer to refer to users by name; in this instance, I would generally have preferred to direct this at you with "@Per Ankh". However, it's more sensible to refer to the user by the signed name, for the benefit of readers. But this is just a personal preference; maybe that's just me. For what it's worth, I agree with BitterLime, i.e. that staff members in particular need to be easy to identify. I'm willing to change my sig if necessary. :Essentially, uniqueness is the only core requirement for a suitable sig. But we have to draw the line somewhere (signing as "Ooihashhfoeeedc" would also be unique, but stupid), and I felt that chumhandles were a good place to draw it. I briefly considered allowing mythological titles as well, but as we know, they're far from unique. For example, I know of two Rogues of Space (Per Ankh and Fighter Jecht) and two Thieves of Mind (BitterLime and Jimcloud) Is this okay? Per Ankh, ED 03:34, April 27, 2012 (UTC) My user name and abbreviated chumhandle. :Yep ---- ---- Bump. We have signature policy listed as "a thing" on the policy list, but it would seem that it's not actually in place. So, basically, are there any further comments anyone wants to add, or are we implementing it as discussed above? To summarise: *Link to userpage is mandatory. *Should not have pointless excess text. *No more than 15px high, i.e. must not increase inline height. *No more than one small image. *Must include username, or something extremely similar. **''Allow chumhandles?'' *A certain amount of flair is permitted... **''We can use the examples I gave above to show what's acceptable.'' *...but if it's more than about half a line of markup, as an extreme maximum, make it a template, and get it to transclude, not subst. **''We can include the instructions for this on the policy page.'' I think that's everything important for a framework. We can fill in further details on the policy page :I think that basically covers everything and is simple and fair. Unless there are objections to it I say we go ahead and implement it. The Light6 16:48, June 18, 2012 (UTC) ::While I've noticed height being an issue (sometimes I post my signature on a separate line to remove this issue), I don't see why the max images should be one. 17:18, June 18, 2012 (UTC) :::It's for a combination of reasons. One is that images are inherently intrusive in a line of text, and that's not really something we want too much of. Another is that images increase page load times, so the more images people use in sigs, the worse it'll get on talk pages. And then there's the fact that you simply don't need more than one image in a sig. You don't need any, but it can look nice, and I've known it be used as a link (I myself include one in my FFWiki sig). But any more than that and it's drifting into the territory of signatures being glorified ornaments rather than functional identifiers. Significant decorative stuff should be saved for one's userpage, not one's sig. :::Also I'm toying with the idea of a blanket ban on people using the LE animation (Octachoron gets a pass because (a) staff but more importantly (b) inactive), because god knows that thing can be irritating. Possibly even a blanket ban on any animation that is substantially distracting. Something with only a few frames, or where most of the frames are extremely similar, would be fine, but something that changes rapidly is really distracting. :::And finally, if you're having to post your sig on another line, that's a sign that your sig needs changing. Fancy coding should be discarded before text layout conventions, not the other way around. That's really all there is to say on the matter ::::If you find images to be intrusive in a line of text then ban certain heights of images? ::::I like to include images so I can link to two extra places. ::::lol I just grabbed his image so I would have something else to use, I use basically the same signature in every wikia I go to but switch up the two images for local images. ::::I never said I have to, and you can see above that I don't have to. 19:02, June 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::In order: :::::Images will be height-limited. 15px. They're still inherently intrusive purely because they aren't text. :::::Make the first part of your username link to your userpage. It's a natural break, since you use two colours, and one many users will expect. In any case, what you like to do does not mean policy should cater to any one person's whim. The point of the policy is to give reasonable limits that everyone adheres to equally. :::::No comment, other than that that's in no way justification for anything. :::::"sometimes I post my signature on a separate line to remove this issue" You said yourself it's an issue. And whether or not you act on it on any given occasion is irrelevant, as the best way to remove the issue is to fix the code itself ::::::Mine was in order too, oh this as well: ::::::15px, is that how high text is and the limit for text height too? ::::::I've done that before and then for no apparent reason is puts a space in between fel and inoel, idk why, I scoured over and over the code to find where the space was but found none. ::::::Well no, I was just saying that my use of it is not planned to be permanent, just a temp image. ::::::While I called it an issue, it oddly does not appear to be one here...? Every other wikia I go to when my posts are multiple lined it makes a minor spacing adjustment... odd? 20:17, June 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Yes, it is. :::::::Well, my sig links like that, and there's no space, so there must be something complicating yours ?_? :::::::As I said, no real comment. :::::::I don't know what's up with that, I'll have to look into it. Although it still has issues either way. Either it expands the line (bad) or it visibly overlaps the lines above and below (possibly worse) ::::::::Possibly but I'm not seeing it being worse or even mildly bad atm, if it were a couple tens of characters long then maybe but certainly not this small. 13:23, June 19, 2012 (UTC) Oh dear god. ɐlıƃǝɔɥu∩ǝʇıʌoɹɐʌ∩. Just no. This is not the username. It's not even a name at all. It is a string of special symbols that just happen to look like upside down letters. Not that it would be any more acceptable if it actually were upside down letters. This needs to be banned as well; the rules need to state that the sig (or at least the username part of it), has to be written in Latin letters so it's actually bloody well readable within two seconds of looking at it. Because that's what sigs are meant for. We can permit minor deviations, such as a symbol that is sufficiently close to the letter to not impede readability, provided it's not overused :lol I just noticed that and was wondering about it. :Anyways in order to find out who someone is I generally just hover my mouse over their signature to see where they link to, that should help you until this gets enforced. 13:30, June 26, 2012 (UTC) Making it hapen Okay, last call, then. Just to summarise one more time: *A link to the user's userpage is mandatory. *The text of a signature must include the username, or at least something extremely similar, in clearly readable Latin text. *Signatures should not have pointless excess text. *Images, text, or whatever else goes into the sig must be no more than 15px high, i.e. must not increase inline height (15px being the height of a line). *Signatures may include no more than one small image. **Animations are strongly discouraged, and the gif, or anything similarly distracting, is utterly prohibited. *A certain amount of flair is permitted, but if it's more than about half a line of markup, make it a template, and get it to transclude, not subst. **''We can include the instructions for this on the policy page, along with examples of acceptable customisation.'' I'll go ahead and start building the policy page soon :Hmm, so let me get this height thing straight, * Homestuck Hotshot * :The above two signatures violate the height rule, right? 14:25, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Chez's most certainly does, although it might slide if he didn't have the images, I'm not sure (although of course it still violates other rules). Yours... is odd, I still don't know why it doesn't increase the line-height, but it certainly overlaps the surrounding lines a little, noticeable when it ends up under certain letters, so technically, yes, in violation. And also a visibly bulky sig just doesn't look nice anyway, especially when it amounts to a blob of colour. For all the negatives, Chez's at least had a border that made it easier on the eyes :::Well my sig was supposed to have rounded and soft edges but then when I updated my Firefox I noticed those edges turned into ninety degree angles. 16:31, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yes, I can tell, I can see the curves on my current browser. You'll need to remove the "-moz-" from the coding. But still, that doesn't stop it being a blob of colour. If anything it makes it more a blob, as opposed to a block. Neither looks nice :::::What is your current browser? 16:38, July 5, 2012 (UTC) ::::::IceWeasel. Long story short, laptop crashed, so I'm running it on a Linux disc-based OS [[Project:Signature policy|'Okay, it's ready']]. I haven't added a link on the policies list yet, and nor have I changed the sitenotice, because I want a chance to iron out any last nitpicks. But I should say that the overall content of that page is now basically fixed, barring significant discussion from multiple users. Otherwise, I'm asking only about little tweaks before it becomes official Cool! Per Ankh ED 00:35, July 8, 2012 (UTC) Not exactly what I would call it, now I have to alter my signature. ~felinoel 00:56, July 8, 2012 (UTC) Which is now linkless. Per Ankh ED 01:03, July 8, 2012 (UTC) just do felinoel for a signature. --Chezrush 14:56, July 8, 2012 (UTC) I'm fine manually writing out my name and then using five tildes for a time stamp up until I have the time to adjust my signature. ~felinoel 14:27, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, you aren't. Not unless you use a link ::Oh yeah that is true... also you spelled my name wrong, fixed. ~felinoel 12:33, July 10, 2012 (UTC) I notice there is a claim (and I'm not surprised in the least at who is saying it) about me having "snuck in" the one image rule. There are precisely three instances in this discussion of rules being summarised: *My initial proposal, right at the start: "sigs may contain images, but not too many" *The first summary bump, about halfway down the page: "No more than one small image." *The finalisation at the start of this section: "Signatures may include no more than one small image." *Additionally, the policy page prior to it becoming official had, and still has, text identical to the above one. Check the page history if you like, felinoel; you're welcome to waste time on that. At no point has this rule not been extremely clear, and no-one but you has been seen really opposing it. Also, your new signature is no better than (and possibly worse than) your old one – it's preposterously wide, you are wilfully ignoring the one image rule, and generally it's frankly hideous. If you don't just make a more sensible and less obtrusive sig soon we may have to start considering it an act of bad faith :See here, I state that I overlooked the posting. As well as also saying that I was talking about the finalisation, not the other two instances. I definitely saw the other two instances and that can be seen as I had made comments against them those times. :As for how ugly my signature is, isn't that my problem? If I make it ugly and yet it follows the rules then I don't see the problem. :~felinoel 16:00, July 10, 2012 (UTC) ::Okay, fair enough on the first point, although obviously the solution to that is to check more carefully in future. Your comments are heard; however, the wants of one user do not overrule the fact that every other user who has posted since then is explicitly or implicitly in support of or at least neutrality to the one image rule. To say otherwise is to suggest that your opinion is worth more than everyone else's – it's worth the same, there are just more people who don't agree with your opinion than do. As for how ugly your sig is, bear in mind that the purpose of a sig means that it exists for the benefit of everyone else. So yes, there is nothing explicitly forbidding your sig from being ugly, but it won't be a popular move to do so, and frankly, I don't know why you would want it to be so either. ::If I felt like being technical (and I'm afraid I often do), red text on green is not entirely easy to read, so you should use colours with more contrast to obey the readability requirement. And as for those two huge black blocks on either end, why are they so wide? There's no rule against it, but it is implicitly the same as excess text – there should be a reason for it, or it should go. ::And btw, the first letter of your username is capitalised whether you like it or not. That's just a fact of wikia. You can of course display it lowercase, as you do, but the "actual" name has a capital :3 :::Heard is fine I guess, but still ignored? Think what you want but an image that does not break the line heights is not intrusive and therefore is not needed to be against the rules as I've said. I never said my opinion was worth more than others', I only said that the rule is unnecessary when coupled with a height rule that makes images nonintrusive. :::I like rapiers and I was still trying to find a properly HS themed image for my second image when I was forced to remove what I had as a placeholder and so I just went with a sword. :::Red is the opposite of green, meaning one stands out on the other almost as much as black and white. The sword image came with a LOT of extra space on the left so I added some lines to even it out on the other side, again, I haven't taken the time to consider a permanent signature yet. :::Not sure what you are referencing here? I always set it up to look like the first letter isn't capitalized, the only time I don't is when I use the correct character to spell it which is the mathematical symbol for function, ƒ. ::: 16:41, July 10, 2012 (UTC)